From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DD36B0035 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id s18so1165529lam.6 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mu10si6119637lbb.7.2014.08.28.08.50.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z11so1119422lbi.8 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140827135348.9c9ccefebccc74083f7ba922@linux-foundation.org> References: <1408892163-8073-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <20140827135348.9c9ccefebccc74083f7ba922@linux-foundation.org> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 00:50:14 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: use memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base() From: Akinobu Mita Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org 2014-08-28 5:53 GMT+09:00 Andrew Morton : > On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:56:02 +0900 Akinobu Mita wrote: > >> Replace memblock_find_in_range() and memblock_reserve() with >> memblock_alloc_range() or memblock_alloc_base(). > > Please spend a little more time preparing the changelogs? OK, I'll be careful next time. > Why are we making this change? Because memblock_alloc_range() is > equivalent to memblock_find_in_range()+memblock_reserve() and it's just > a cleanup? Or is there some deeper functional reason? This is just a cleanup and I thought there are no functional change. But I've just realized that the conversion to memblock_alloc_base() in this patch changes the behaviour in the error case. Because memblock_alloc_base calls panic if it can't allocate. So please drop this patch from -mm tree for now. > Does memblock_find_in_range() need to exist? Can we convert all > callers to memblock_alloc_range()? There are two callsites where we can't simply convert with memblock_alloc_range (arch/s390/kernel/setup.c, arch/x86/mm/init.c). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org